Legal Opinion

Mosesian v. Pennwalt Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 4, 1987No. F003781PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BALLANTYNE, J.

Introduction

The instant action arose after Charles Mosesian allegedly suffered crop losses on Madera grapevines in 1979 from application of Kryocide pesticide. Defendant Pennwalt Corporation (hereafter Pennwalt) manufactured and defendant Helena Chemical Company (hereafter Helena) sold the Kryocide.

The six-week jury trial ended with a defense verdict. The trial court then granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground that prejudicial hearsay statements from outside experts were brought into evidence through the testimony of Pennwalt’s primary expert…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  2. Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Whitfield v. RothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. People v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. People v. SimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. People v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. People v. AultCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1989
  5. People v. AultCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API